Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
But those are not uncontested facts. They're what the defense said happened, but there's no real evidence of that beyond Stanley's testimony.
|
And this is the exact way it is supposed to, and should, work. The Crown must prove their case beyond a reasobable doubt, it is no incumbent on the accused to provide evidence supporting their innocence. In this case, the jury clearly felt that the Crown presented no evidence supporting their charges.
The way you are talking, it sounds like you would be fine if the accused in trials were forced to prove their innocence.